Here's the most accurate depiction of Muhammed known at this time:Quote:
Originally Posted by sirhamish
Printable View
Here's the most accurate depiction of Muhammed known at this time:Quote:
Originally Posted by sirhamish
did four people not die as a result of the cartoons? or is it 6?Quote:
Originally Posted by Tired&Emotional
firstly 'they' is pushing very close to a generalisation of most muslims, when it is clearly a lunatic fringe of activists, not a mass movement.
secondly, the argument is very very simple t&e.
the hamshari argument is broadly this: "we as muslims are extremely offended by these cartoons at a time when eastern muslims feel under threat from the west and western muslims are being subjected to harassment. so to test the liberal 'free speech' arguments used to justify mocking mohammed and his followers we will publish cartoons mocking something westerners are going to be offended by, ie the holocoust.".
i think this is an acceptable arguement to make, although i would be more comfortable if it were a 'mock jesus' competition and left jews out of it.
put another way. if you dont have a problem with these cartoons the danes published, but do have a problem with a drug dealing loon in a suicide belt in london or the proposed iranian cartoons, you do not believe in free speech. end of.
as was said here, its easy to defend free speech if you agree with whats being said. the iranians have very deftly played their hand here.
I posted them a few posts back, Pete.:)Quote:
Originally Posted by pete
I posted them a few posts back John83.:)Quote:
Originally Posted by John83
Six according to the Indo.Quote:
Originally Posted by Roverstillidie
There are few enough dissenting voices that you'd be forgiven for thinking that there's a lot of passive support for them.Quote:
firstly 'they' is pushing very close to a generalisation of most muslims, when it is clearly a lunatic fringe of activists, not a mass movement.
No, they really haven't. This is on the level of two eight year olds calling each other names in school.Quote:
"we as muslims are extremely offended by these cartoons at a time when eastern muslims feel under threat from the west and western muslims are being subjected to harassment. so to test the liberal 'free speech' arguments used to justify mocking mohammed and his followers we will publish cartoons mocking something westerners are going to be offended by, ie the holocoust."
...
if you ... have a problem with a drug dealing loon in a suicide belt in london or the proposed iranian cartoons, you do not believe in free speech. end of.
I really hope the Jews are mature enough to deal with this like adults, rather than going around burning flags and buildings and making death threats. On the other hand, if they don't, that part of the world is going to be very lively for the forseeable future.
When has it not?Quote:
Originally Posted by John83
I think this is a fairly interesting piece on the whole thing.
[MOD EDIT: Don't quote entire stories.]
Its a bit crude and goes way over the top in some places, but I agree with a fair few of the points he makes. The self-censorship thing is interesting - it's like if it's too much hassle then papers won't print it. That to me has smacks of fear, but then with things like Van Gogh you can see their point of view.
I agree with the penultimate paragraph too, there is an element of a bi-cultural society.
Here are a couple of things I found on the Guardian website.
http://www.sorrynorwaydenmark.com/
This might be worth reading - heard it on the BBC this mornng
http://media.guardian.co.uk/site/sto...704476,00.html
Quote:
Originally Posted by Roverstillidie
Roverstillidie, I have made my argument and don't want to end up repeating myself - as the risk of getting dizzy going around in circles, we can agree to disagree. You played devils advocate well!
I will keep watching this story though to see who makes the next move before i pick it up again...
I don't see what that's got to do with anything. If we've got freedom of speech then anything goes doesn't it? The argument goes that I'm not a Muslim or a believer in God, so why should I show him respect or reverence. Yes millions of people died in the holocaust, many died in the Ethiopian famine, but these were in far away countries and I didn't know any of them, why should I show reverence to them? I've got the right to say, print, publish whatever I like, no matter who I upset, because I've got freedom of speech and freedom of expression.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tired&Emotional
What is has got to do with is the fact that a large number of Muslims deny that the holocaust even happened. Therefore, by running a competition for Holocaust cartoons it's ridiculous contradiction.Quote:
Originally Posted by Hither green
They are blantantly trying to irratate and raise the stakes and then have the cheek to turn around and say it's under the banner of the Western philiosophy of free-speech (which is why they went on the rampage in the firstplace:confused: ). Do they think they're clever by running this competition? Do they think they are clever condemning freespeech with outlandish statements on placards etc. and then claiming to be excercising it by taking the pis.s out of something that they denied ever happened?
I absolutely agree with you. What they're doing is exactly the same as what the Danes did, blatantly and deliberately go out to irritate under the pretence of freedom of speech. And on that basis, and that two wrongs don't make a right, I'm completely opposed to them printing such cartoons. That said, I'll be interested to see if any of the hypocritical western newspapers take up their challenge to reprint their cartoons, which they obviously won't as they're not aimed at the particular minority that they're trying rile.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tired&Emotional
The French did so this morningQuote:
Originally Posted by Hither green
They won a court ruling that allowed the to print all the original cartoons and even added one of their own, which takes up the entire front page - the headline 'Mohammed overwhelmed by the fundamentalists' with a caricature depicted the prophet with his head in his hands, remarking, “It’s hard to be loved by idiots.”Quote:
Originally Posted by Terry
http://www.breakingnews.ie/2006/02/08/story243712.html
I wasn't referring to the "freedom of speech" cartoons commissioned to insult the Muslim community but the "freedom of speech" cartoons Hamshahri are commissioning to insult the Jewish community. I'd be surprised if they'll ever be printed in Europe.Quote:
Originally Posted by Terry
with the right to freedom of speach comes a responsibility aswell that you dont abuse it , just because you have the right to print what you like does nt mean you have to , the mag in france today that has reprinted the 12 pics plus drawn a new one is just talking the **** there is no need for this at all
in this country you have a right to take a sh1te on the footpath but people dont do it .
if we start banning things where do we stop ? is everything deemed offensive to some one going to get banned ..i find ads for period pads offensive get them banned, i find ryan tubirty offensive get him banned ............allthought that does nt sound too bad an idea :D :D
Well at least we agree on something!Quote:
Originally Posted by Hither green
But I don't think the initial publication in Denmark in Sept. 05 was intended to insult. However shortsighted we say it was now in hindsight, it was only because imams in that country went to the trouble of bringing them "home" to Muslim countries that people there knew about them. i think the cartoons were published in a general, Western-freedom-of-speech-way.
However I would definetley question the motivation of their republication in certain European countries in the last few days ...
Quote:
Originally Posted by anto1208
I agree with questioning the motivation of the Begian & French papers in reprinting them now, in the current climate but the political climate was different back in Sept!
The solution to this would be as complex as the problem. It's not really a clash of civilisations but a difference of viewpoint.
Do we, in the Western World ban all comic references to all religions? How would a law be clear-cut enough to direct interpretation - it can't be done!
Would we never be able to watch "Father Ted" again??
I agree that this isn't a clash of civilisations, despite the printing of these cartoons (or at least their reprinting) being a deliberate attempt to try to make it a clash of cultures by those with a political axe to grind. They could have gone out to annoy the Jewish community, or the Hindu community, or the Seikh community to show that those religions are incompatible with Western society but then they've no axe to grind against those communities.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tired&Emotional
It's true that a clear cut law with obvious boundaries would be difficult to write but perhaps it would be better than the current void where societies and part of societies can be divided by papers or politicians acting like they have carte blanche. If they can't exercise freedom of speech responsibly (as Jacques Chirac has just said) then perhaps they should be given a helping hand in making such decisions.
Thats not relevant at all in my opinion, we ran the world single-handedly back then so obviously there would be mistakes made and idiots put in power, i.e. Hitler, Stalin, Thatcher and De Valera (:D ) but I shudder to think, given what generally passes for justice and common decency in arab countries what kind of world we would be living in today had the history of the world turned out differantly and made them the dominant race. For one thing I don't think we'd have so many Left Wing Nazis running around with their usual spiel of 'everyone's allowed an opinion, but if it differs from ours in the slightest than you're just a bigoted, homophobic Daily Mail reader', well okay in that sense it would have been a good thing.Quote:
Originally Posted by Roverstillidie
Quote:
Originally Posted by jebus
Well, listening to Anjem Choudary (he of Trinity College Dublin debate "Ireland is a legitimate target for terrorist groups as a result of Bush invading Iraq"), he has gone on record as saying he wants Sharia law in every country and looks forward to the day when the black flag os Islam flies over Downing Street and Dail Eireann!
If this is a voice for radical Islam and, as a group, they are going to be listened too to stop their cartoon protestations, I shudder to think of what the future holds for the world in gereral.
These radicals have done more for extreme right wing groups, such as the BNP, than these parties could have ever done by themselves.
I fear even more & worse confrontation in the future. Then factor in the desire for nukes in some countries........it isn't pretty.
I agree completely with that, if you were to put a label on what I used to be it was a conservative liberal I'd reckon, but I've been pushed into the center on my political views and am increasingly looking to right wing groups as opposed to left wing to sort the world out. Point of view on this is that if you have extreme Muslim groups in power in the Middle East and with a lust for atomic weapons than we need hardline right wingers to be able to deal with them. For all the talk of the Republicans and the Conservatives and New Labour being out-dated in America and Britain respectively would you really trust a Ralph Nader or the Lib-Dems to be able to handle terrorist action against either country?Quote:
Originally Posted by Tired&Emotional
What with the rise of fascist groups in France, Holland and Europe in general I do think its only a matter of time before they come back to power, although obviously not an extreme fascist group like the Nazi party. I think as soon as one of these groups realise the key to getting into power is having a charasmatic frontman who is able to make the public believe that while they may be fascist, they are compassionate fascists (i.e. non-racists) than they will get back into power. As soon as that happens it really is an 'its us or them' situation in the world between the Western World and the Muslim World and thats where World War 3 breaks out. I paint quite the picture don't I!? :o
The Israeli's are unpredictable and with the Neuclear issue in Iran hitting the headlines I really fear that Israel may use this escaltion in muslim hatred as an excuse for a preemptive pop at Tehran, if that Happens there is a chance that Russia and China may retailiate on Isreal with the Yanks jumping to israels defence and we'll all go to hell in a hand basket for the sake of a few lousy cartoon's so finely balanced is the situation in the Mid-EastQuote:
Originally Posted by Tired&Emotional
I think that’s outrageous. In areas where they were dominant things worked absolutely fine. And I’m not harking back to medieval times, in the 19th century when “we” the West (well Russia mostly) were really getting into anti-semitism the Jews fled into the Ottoman Empire for sanctuary and were welcomed. It’s only been with the advent of the nation state and the artificial creation of countries in the middle-east that things have gone pear-shaped - well that and 80 years of western meddling. That’s often what happens when you artificially create countries instead of letting them evolve, you end up with dictators, or unenlightened regimes based on local customs or extreme religious practice. Many of the regimes in Africa aren’t much better. So perhaps instead of vilifying "arab countries" we should vilify western countries for making them what they are today, instead of what they would have become had they been left to their own devises.Quote:
Originally Posted by jebus
Agree entirely with you both (jebus & Block G Raptor)
WW III was on my mind as well - the whole situation needs to get under control and FAST.
It could start with some sort of law, anything at this stage, on the press in Western Europe. - one that will go some way to appease Muslims and at the same not impact free speech in the West (and by that i would mean stopping incitement to hatred/insult by provocation, an add on to recent laws that have come into being).
Another would be open dialogue with muslims countries to explain (among a other things) how state and media are separate and that governments are not (up to the point of the above, say) reponsible for newspaper editors.
By all their rioting the Muslims have themselves been prophetic to the bomb depicted in the cartoons - but then terrorised groups have coloured the West's attititude to Muslims already.
a few points:
t&e, you are sailing close to the wind by constantly referring to the small groups of radicals stirring it up and rioting (no mention of the larger peaceful vigils in the western press that started all this) as 'them' or 'the muslims'. You are stereotyping and its unhelpful.
another choice bit of garbage was 'large numbers of muslims deny the holocoust happened', utter tripe. small amounts of extremists wish it had been more 'effective', so the jews wouldnt have landed in the palestine in the first place and wind israilies up about it. appaling yes, but a different proposition to denyal. why run a cartoon comp if you deny it took place? you are throwing nonsense around all over the place
Choudary was asked a direct question about whether SHANNON's use as a US military facility leaves us open to terrorist attack and he replied yes. this is something the security apparatus of this state, journos, politicians and the yanks themselves have been saying. when an arab says it is described as a threat and he is immediatly labelled a terrorist by bigots like you. its like saying tim pat coogan was a provo. and islams colour is green, so thats 2 factual innacuracies in one post.
t&e, some of this garbage is borderline racist.
there was a professor of history on newstalk with dunphy and he made a very valid point. up until very recently it was christians who killed 'unbelieviers' and aggressivley prostelised. we developed economicially and stopped. his point was islam is currently going through this developmental cycle and will grow out of it if we let them.
Firstly, I completely reject the accusation - if you disagree fine but don't go fanning the flames! "Them" is alot shorter to type - I have said in my earlier posts who I am referring to. If you follow my threads the understading should be "minority of radical Muslims taking offence to cartoons published in Denmark in Sept 05". Your jumping in with two feet here trying to stir this up.
You're the one with the inflamatory language!
Secondly, do some research on denial of the holocaust. And my "nonsense" as you put it is actually highlighting the nonsense of printing cartoons about the holocaust!! That is what i am questioning.
Thirdly, do you know anything of Choudray's history or alter ego or are you basing your comments on what you hear when he in on the Eamonn Dunphy Breakfast Show? btw his other name is Omar Bakri Muhammad - do a Google on both an educate youself properly first!
If this is garbage & racist then report me to a mod - i have done nothing but put forward constructive arguments on this topic. - just because you take exception doesn't mean you can go say what you like - there are rules!
the cartoons about the holocoust are direct tit-for-tat in testing our reaction to something that offends us. i have never heard or heard it alledged, even by the most ardent zionist, that radical muslims deny the holocoust ever took place. you put it out there, back it up, otherwise you are making bizarre allegations.
i was at the debate in trinity, who are what choudary is isnt the point here. you are misquoting him to try and push the agenda that all arabs are terrorists. what he actually said was, again, ireland has involved itself in the war in iraq and some nutters will see us as a legitimate target. nothing 99% of us dont already know. why is it different when a man from the mid-east says it?
the eamon dunphy show reference, if you had actually bothered to read my post before going off on a self righteus rant (kind of ironic considereing the topic at hand), was the historian placing contemporary islam against historical christianity. it was very interesting and relevent when you put christianities past achievements (holocaust, crusades, conqustadores, anti-jewish progroms etc) into the frame, this burst of islamic defiance is a bit of a storm in a teacup really.
this is getting pointless. but for 1 second think, that with the same media bias against muslims and ****s like you who swallow it, how do they see us? we are the jew killing, decadent, polluting, lazy, imperialist west who insult their religion, steal their oil and back up the dictators that oppress them in between worshipping paedophile priests and injecting heroin.
stereotypes are easy to do....
Good summing up HG - look at Rwanda and the Congo. Belgium sucked both areas dry for their raw materials for so long, supported minorities to control those areas (brutally) and then fcuked off when both countries tilted into dreadful violence.Quote:
Originally Posted by Hither green
Historically, the West/Europe has a lot to answer for. It was the Brits who created Iraq, it was the Brits and the US who undermined a democratically elected leader in Iran to install the murderous Shah. Only a couple of examples but should we really be surprised when payback occurs. It might not be us individually responsible for those historical aspects but we must ensure that we don't compound the problems of the past by continuing the abuse. Buying more Fair Trade goods, supporting the Iraq obscenity protests, fcuking out Bush, Bliar, Berlusconi and co are just a few of the things the West an do.
I heard a candidate for the Lebanese Presidency say on Radio 5 Live at 5.45pm today that the protests there last Sunday over the cartoons came damn close to starting another Lebanese civil war and he claimed Syria was involved too.
What a mess this whole thing is turning out to be.
With what has been said by Irans president, Israel will be well entitled to make a pre-emptive strike against nuclear facilites, just as they did in Iraq..Quote:
Originally Posted by Block G Raptor
the iranian president saying 'if the europeans feel so guilty about the holocaust let them house the new jewish state and leave arabs out of it' entitles them to use military action on what is still a civilian facility? :eek:Quote:
Originally Posted by Condex
and people wonder why muslems feel cornered.....
Agree fully. At this stage the controversy is being used by sections of both sides to further their own causes.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tired&Emotional
Why should the Jews move, they have always lived in Palestine for thousands of years and Islam has only been around since the 6th century.Quote:
Originally Posted by Roverstillidie
and as for borders most European country borders changed in times of war!!
talk about dragging it off topic.....Quote:
Originally Posted by Condex
the state of israel is the issue he addressed, that was founded in 1947.
why should the palestenians be forceably moved by zionist terrorists to accomodate this UN designed state after thousands of years of peaceful coixestance with the jews to appease our guilt?
what has any of this got to do with these cartoons?
back on topic:
caught a guy on the news, representitive of the muslim groups in britain. he made an interesting point that he saw those cartoons as akin to the caricatures the nazi's used to insult and dehumanise the jews in their press in the 1930's and called for all images of mohammed to be banned in the british media.
discuss!
intereseting in this day and age of mass media and internet it is good old fashioned cartoon caricatures that still cause the most reaction
Quote:
Originally Posted by Roverstillidie
I'm not going to engage debate with you with an attitude like that.
I may have brought Chroudray into this but if you are going to reply YOU should know history too!
Go fish!
Moderator: Anymore personal attacks from anyone & posts will be deleted & thread closed.
apologies for personalising it, wont happen again, but that reply is not good enough, you misquoted him deliberatly.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tired&Emotional
why he was there isnt the point. what he said was and you were being mischiveous
OK, accepted.Quote:
Originally Posted by Roverstillidie
Where did I misquote him? I certainly wouldn't misquote deliberately - remember what side of the argument I am on here - would be a bit silly of me to do that given the stance i'm taking! I mentioned the TCD thing so people would know who I was talking about.
I did bring AC into it yes but by doing so i was trying to relate the type of people who are speaking on behalf of radical/extremist Muslims. What he said in the debate about Shannon being used and our relation ship with the US is true but, as you say, not relevent here. I agree that our gov. is in bed with the US on stop-overs but that is where I draw the line.
Saying that Ireland is a legit. target for Muslim terrorists is wrong. The guy is a spokesman for Omar Bakri! I was only highlighting the soundpiece for Muslim extremists.
I probably shouldn't post the link (new rules?) but I feel i need to to back up my case, mods, to show where this guy (AC) has decided to put his political ideals.
http://www.militantislammonitor.org/article/id/964
Totally Agree morally Israel are entitled to feel agreived it's the possible domino effect that worries me mostQuote:
Originally Posted by Condex
Yes, that's why they've nearly all got American accents, they've always been in Palestine but have just watched too much Fox News. Without prolonging this diversion, let's not forget that the Arabs turfed out of their homes 50 years ago to create the state are stilling living in make-shift shanty towns dotted around the middle east. And a sizeable number of them are Christian Arabs, also not given the vote by Israel.Quote:
Originally Posted by Condex
I'm sure there's been lots of migration into that area and some invasion, but the coming of Islam was largely the coming of a religion, not a people. The same peoples are there as were there long before Moses wandered into town, they've just converted to Islam from Zoroastrianism, Christianity, Arianism or whatever. Anyway back to the main debate.Quote:
Originally Posted by Condex